DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to the claimed invention filed on February 06, 2025, in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Remark
This application is a continuation of US Patent application serial No. 17/463,052 , filed on August 30, 2021, now U.S. Patent No. 12,248,442.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on February 06, 2025 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file. The information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
At Step 1:
respect to subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101, it is determined that the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The limitation “determining, based on the NL statement and a plurality of script templates, that a first script template of the plurality of script templates is associated with the NL statement, wherein the first script template comprises a plurality of metavariables” in claims 1, 8 and 15, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “determining, based on the NL statement and a plurality of script templates, that a first script template of the plurality of script templates is associated with the NL statement, wherein the first script template comprises a plurality of metavariables”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, the limitation “determining, based on the NL statement and a plurality of script templates, that a first script template of the plurality of script templates is associated with the NL statement, wherein the first script template comprises a plurality of metavariables”, in the context of these claims encompasses one can mentally, or manually with the aid of pen and paper determine that a first script template of the plurality of script templates is associated with the NL statement.
The limitation “determining, based on the first script template, a plurality of fields of the data model associated with the plurality of metavariables, wherein the plurality of fields corresponds to the NL statement” in claims 1, 8 and 15, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “determining, based on the first script template, a plurality of fields of the data model associated with the plurality of metavariables, wherein the plurality of fields corresponds to the NL statement”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, the limitation “determining, based on the first script template, a plurality of fields of the data model associated with the plurality of metavariables, wherein the plurality of fields corresponds to the NL statement”, in the context of these claims encompasses one can mentally, or manually with the aid of pen and paper determine a plurality of fields of the data model associated with the plurality of metavariables.
The limitation “generating, based on the first script template, a first script comprising one or more functions and the plurality of fields, wherein the plurality of fields replace the plurality of metavariables in the first script template” in claims 1, 8 and 15, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “generating, based on the first script template, a first script comprising one or more functions and the plurality of fields, wherein the plurality of fields replace the plurality of metavariables in the first script template”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, the limitation “generating, based on the first script template, a first script comprising one or more functions and the plurality of fields, wherein the plurality of fields replace the plurality of metavariables in the first script template”, in the context of these claims encompasses one can mentally, or manually with the aid of pen and paper generate a first script comprising one or more functions and the plurality of fields.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
That the method is "implemented by a computing system” is a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
The limitation “receiving, via a user interface, input information associated with a data model, wherein the input information is indicative of a natural language (NL) statement”, amount to data-gathering steps which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation “causing, based on execution of the first script, the one or more functions to modify the data model” recites insignificant extra-solution activity such as mere outputting of the result. Mere presentation or output of a mental process generated recommendation does meaningfully limit the abstract idea nor provide integration into a practical application. Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
The limitation “one or more non-transitory computer-readable; one or more processors; and memory” are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to on more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
With respect to the "receiving" identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
With respect to the "causing…" identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334; i. … transmitting data over a network, …Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)".
The “one or more non-transitory computer-readable; one or more processors; and memory” amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrate by: Relevant court decision: the followings are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, see e.g., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): Computer readable storage media comprising instructions to implement a method, e.g., see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim appears to be ineligible.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. The remaining independent claims 8 and 15 fall short the 35 USC 101 requirement under the same rationale.
The dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 when analyzed and each taken as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 USC 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 2 recites “wherein determining that the first script template is associated with the NL statement comprises determining, based on the NL statement, that the first script template matches at least one portion of the NL statement”. This additional element, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the data model is associated with a data scope, and wherein the one or more functions modify the data model and retain the data scope”. This additional element, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the one or more functions add data related to the plurality of fields to at least one table in the data model”. This additional element, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the first script template comprises one or more code instructions that operate on the plurality of metavariables in the first script template”. This additional element, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the user interface comprises a command-line prompt, and wherein receiving the input information associated with the data model comprises receiving, via the command-line prompt, the input information associated with the data model”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for receiving the input information associated with the data model, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the one or more functions comprise a LOAD statement, a JOIN statement, or a CONCATENATE statement”. This additional element, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 9 recites “wherein determining that the first script template is associated with the NL statement comprises determining, based on the NL statement, that the first script template matches at least one portion of the NL statement”. This additional element, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the data model is associated with a data scope, and wherein the one or more functions modify the data model and retain the data scope”. This additional element, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the one or more functions add data related to the plurality of fields to at least one table in the data model”. This additional element, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the first script template comprises one or more code instructions that operate on the plurality of metavariables in the first script template”. This additional element, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the user interface comprises a command-line prompt, and wherein receiving the input information associated with the data model comprises receiving, via the command-line prompt, the input information associated with the data model”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for receiving the input information associated with the data model, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the one or more functions comprise a LOAD statement, a JOIN statement, or a CONCATENATE statement”. This additional element, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 16 recites “wherein determining that the first script template is associated with the NL statement comprises determining, based on the NL statement, that the first script template matches at least one portion of the NL statement”. This additional element, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the data model is associated with a data scope, and wherein the one or more functions modify the data model and retain the data scope”. This additional element, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 18 recites “wherein the one or more functions add data related to the plurality of fields to at least one table in the data model”. This additional element, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 19 recites “wherein the first script template comprises one or more code instructions that operate on the plurality of metavariables in the first script template”. This additional element, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 20 recites “wherein the user interface comprises a command-line prompt, and wherein receiving the input information associated with the data model comprises receiving, via the command-line prompt, the input information associated with the data model”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for receiving the input information associated with the data model, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10,437,805 (involved in receiving a query for information from the database, determining particular data element types and data element values that are the subject of the query, instantiating a query data structure containing the data element types and the data element values that are the subject of the query, identifying records within the database that contain one or more data element types and/or data element values that are included in the query data structure, and instantiating a results data structure comprising information relating to the identified records).
US 9,619,548 (involved in a request for aggregate data stored in an aggregates database is received from a client device. A key-to-value dimension widening rule that applies to an aggregated data element of the requested data is identified. The key-to-value dimension widening rule includes a value dimension. A quantity of data elements that combined to form the aggregated data element is determined. A widened value dimension for the aggregated data element is calculated using the determined quantity and the value dimension. The widened value dimension is reported to the client device in response to the request).
US 20160042013 (involved in receiving a set of dimension widening rules at a processing circuit. The dimension widening rules includes multiple conditions and multiple actions. A data element is received that has multiple dimensions. The dimension widening rules are applicable to the data element, which is identified by the processing circuit. A dimension widening rule is applicable to the data element. The dimensions of the data element is satisfied multiple conditions of the dimension widening rule. The data element is stored in a database by applying the dimension widening rules).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN M CORRIELUS whose telephone number is (571)272-4032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30a-10p(Midflex).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ann J Lo can be reached at (571)272-9767. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JEAN M CORRIELUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159 January 30, 2026